- From: Noah Mendelsohn <nrm@arcanedomain.com>
- Date: Sat, 30 Nov 2013 13:57:14 -0500
- To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Tim Bray <tbray@textuality.com>
- CC: Alex Russell <slightlyoff@google.com>, "Matt Miller (mamille2)" <mamille2@cisco.com>, JSON WG <json@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, "www-tag@w3.org" <www-tag@w3.org>, es-discuss <es-discuss@mozilla.org>
On 11/27/2013 11:51 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > JSON is interesting in being a subset of ECMAscript. That is a big > dependency -- will it be preserved? > However as it is unwise to feed JSON into an ECMAscript processor for > security reasons, that dependency may not affect code, just mean that > JSON and ECMAscript parsers can share parts at the moment. There may be many other situations in which there is benefit to having JSON be a proper subset of ECMAscript. For example, one can imagine tool chains used for development or testing that would depend on the ability to copy text fragments between JSON and ECMAscript source documents, and one might foresee more "vertical" standards that would depend on the commonality as well. Noah
Received on Saturday, 30 November 2013 18:57:36 UTC